He won’t have his massive spending plans outdone by Hillary Clinton.

Ron Sachs/ZUMA Press/NewscomThe criticism at the Democratic National Convention last week directed toward Donald Trump had at least one significant flaw: They acted as though he had no policy plans at all, though in reality several of his economic proposals mimic what we hear from Democrats themselves. His anti-trade positions, his desire to punish companies that leave the United States, and his desire to use federal infrastructure spending as a jobs program all mimic things said by Democrats and even Hillary Clinton herself.

But Trump is a particularly special candidate in that he simply cannot allow anybody else to offer something that in his mind is better or bolder than what he's offering. So in an interview this morning, knowing that Clinton has proposed a $275 billion infrastructure spending plan over five years, Trump told Fox Business News that he would "at least" double that amount of spending.

So that would be at least $550 billion in spending. Remember that the big stimulus money spent under President Barack Obama's administration totaled $833 billion.

At the exact same time (in the same interview, no less), Trump says he's going to implement "the biggest tax decrease." This is crazy nonsense, and he says that he'll pay for his plan with a "fund" where people would "invest."

One big problem here (among many big problems) is that Trump, like Democrats, are focusing on infrastructure projects as a job program instead of a program narrowly focused on fixing the actual infrastructure—those bridges Trump says he is worried about. A focus on jobs indicates a desire to spread money around using infrastructure needs as a justification, not a purpose. As Peter Suderman noted in a Reason magazine cover story in 2013, the emphasis on using infrastructure spending as a "stimulus" rather than a plan to fix actual defined problems resulted in things like spending millions of dollars on toilets in national parks and ultimately a lack of evidence that it actually improved our economic situation.

Nobody wants to be an "investor" in such a program because everybody wants to be the beneficiary. This is a program where people want to receive the money, not pay into it. If Trump (or Clinton, for that matter) needs a better example, check out California's high-speed rail plans. This is a pure example of a program that has been designed to spread around money, not meet actual infrastructure needs of the Golden State. That it's passing through the central area of California instead of zipping between the urban centers of San Francisco and Los Angeles is a blatant payoff to make sure various labor groups get work and get their share of the pot (and for the local politicians to get credit and votes for bringing home some bacon). As such, particularly given the unlikelihood of the train ever operating at a break-even point, let alone a profit, they are unable to draw in private investors. People realize all the money is in building the train, not running it.

So is the potential for both Trump's and Clinton's infrastructure plans. If the goal is to spread around money, there will be plenty of hands out, but actual infrastructure needs become subservient to who has the most power and influence over the spending process. China, which Obama himself once praised for its infrastructure spending, has instead become a massive example of how government spending for the sake of creating the appearance of growth leads to cronyism, corruption, and eventually actual threats to public safety from shoddy outcomes. China spends big on infrastructure, and yet its bridges are still collapsing.

And let's not pretend that there hasn't been a constant drumbeat of jobs-focused infrastructure spending throughout Obama's administration, even beyond the initial stimulus. Matt Welch documented Obama frequently calling for more infrastructure spending as a jobs program, despite little evidence that this spending actual stimulated the economy.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Well, look at the size of Donald's ego. It's hard to believe that it would ever let him allow someone else to beat him at something. I still can't imagine what Hillary could have offered him to overcome that hurdle. Perhaps SugarFree has some ideas...

I don't think an explicit plan to torpedo his own campaign would be necessary. I suspect maybe Bill gave him the idea of running as a Republican, just to wreck havoc with the Republican party, assuming that sooner or later he would implode. Maybe they never expected him to get this far.

The party that believes in America, that wants to reform government, that wants to renew American values, that strives for American exceptionalism and most importantly the party that wants to Make America Great Again.
Coincidentally, if you would like to purchase an official Make America Great Again, you can do so here!

Working? No, it just means three people standing around every road project for every one actually working, instead of the current 2:1 ratio. Maybe he will send out his apprentices to check for efficiency?

He's running against Hillary Rotten Clinton. He has a grass-roots thing going. This should be the easiest win since Reagan crushed Dukakis. Talk about ending corruption and cronyism, fair trade if you want, getting the federal government under control, tax reform and growth. Boom - easy win.

Instead he's in a Twitter war with some dead soldier's dad, and promising to spend half-a-trillion on make-work bullshit. WTF?

Being his campaign manager has to be a nightmare. Like trying to teach a cat to do a trick while mice are running by and people are shining lasers on the wall.

But Trump has been running to the left of Clinton and the rest of his Republican rivals. Hence the promises of public spending and jobs. To tack to the right (by adopting Romney's platform) now that he has secured the nomination makes no sense. Republican loyalists are already in the bag. Now he has to attract disaffected Dems, and spouting Romneyisms isn't the way to do it.

" Barack Obama, who is a much more formidable opponent than Hillary Clinton."

Trump on the other hand seems to damage himself than suffer from whatever damage is dished out by his rivals. (His bizarre attacks on the 'Mexican judge,' this muslim mother,..) This seems to neutralize Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate.

You're looking at an unconventional candidate in a conventional fashion. Trump's problem is that he alienates large portions of the electorate and comes off as knowing little to nothing about policy. Where he is on the ideological spectrum is the least of his concerns.

"Where he is on the ideological spectrum is the least of his concerns."

That's to his loss. If he wants to attract the Dem crossovers he needs in the swing states, he needs to emphasize jobs and public spending and lay off the bigotry. I feel it must sound very grating to Dem ears, even for white working class Dems.

I haven't followed his policy statements on this, but I do think its odd and perhaps unfair that Trump is being held to the standard that career politicians have set, rather than something new and potentially different.

"infrastructure stimulus" Jobs programs have been a crony boondoggle, funneling most of the money away from where it would have done some good. Obama has been a joke on this, laughably talking the benefits to the plebes, while only his cronies get rich.

That said, is anyone arguing that we don't desperately need infrastructure investment? States need to pick up some slack, but major projects have been the Fed's responsibility. I really don't see the downside in significant investment in infrastructure. Rail, bridges, interstates, communication. I'd like to see Federal investment in medical research as well.
The cronyism is the problem, not the spend itself. Why do we assume Trump will be more of the same?

he says that he'll pay for his plan with a "fund" where people would "invest."

He must be referring to a bonding authority: a quasi-governmental entity that borrows against expectation of revenue from the projects it funds. Trouble is, everyone assumes they're gov't liabilities, no matter what the legal fiction. They can be completely private in name, law, stated intentions, yet they're'll be inexorable pressure to bail them out w tax $ if they need it.